Maybe not. But I have enough knowledge about cars in general to make the assumption that it is not progress. In fact, I am amazed by how many race fans are being tricked into believing that a narrow front track is better than a wider front track on a car designed to go around corners.

No, but there doesn't appear to be much difference between the two layouts, whilst the narrower track reduces drag and weight considerably allowing a less powerful engine to attain the same speed as a more powerful conventional car and making it substantially more economical.

Improving economy whilst retaining performance is of great importance in endurance racing I suspect....

BTW I still remember a time when there was outrage amongst some that some startup German team wanted to use Diesel engines at Le Mans, after all we know that that type of dirty engine does not belong in motorsport, ditto hybrids. How did that turn out?

I know them well enough, the longer chord length of the main tube in theory favors the Cd for that area but does no good to the rest of the car, which now has an eve smaller chord length than your average square design.

The design was intended to be a standard series model to be ran mostly on oval circuits and not to compete against square designs in Le Mans while disregarding the rule book. It is now kept alive as a marketing gimmick. That's the theory behind it.

While the car and the programs are still struggling, they can't say lacking driver input isn't helping. Atlantics/F3/FBMW winner Jonathan Summerton took the car for a test at Road Atlanta this week. Along with Katharine Legge, Olivia Pla, and Andy Meyrick, while not a group of superstars, they are more than capable of giving solid data for development, on top of if given, a competitive program during the weekend.

The DeltaWing according to my figures (and rough calcs) has a Cd of 0.35 and a frontal area of 1.46m2 whilst the R18 had a Cd of 0.48 and a frontal area of 1.76m2. This means that to travel at 200mph the DeltaWing only needs 300bhp opposed to the R18s 500bhp, this however does not mean the DeltaWing produces significantly less downforce.

The DeltaWing produces a lift to drag ratio of -4.90 (according to my calcs) whilst the R18 produced a value of -4.00 meaning the DeltaWing is aerodynamically more efficient producing more negative lift (downforce) for the equivalent amount of drag. The reason for this is it uses underbody aero (huge venturi tunnels) which is banned within current LMP regulations, this means it does not have aerofoils protruding into the air stream producing drag. Assuming dry weights the DeltaWing produces 25N of downforce per Kg of mass whilst the R18 only creates 18N. The DeltaWing is a good example of the potential benefits of underbody aero and perhaps why it is so closely regulated.

The DeltaWing according to my figures (and rough calcs) has a Cd of 0.35 and a frontal area of 1.46m2 whilst the R18 had a Cd of 0.48 and a frontal area of 1.76m2. This means that to travel at 200mph the DeltaWing only needs 300bhp opposed to the R18s 500bhp, this however does not mean the DeltaWing produces significantly less downforce.

The DeltaWing produces a lift to drag ratio of -4.90 (according to my calcs) whilst the R18 produced a value of -4.00 meaning the DeltaWing is aerodynamically more efficient producing more negative lift (downforce) for the equivalent amount of drag. The reason for this is it uses underbody aero (huge venturi tunnels) which is banned within current LMP regulations, this means it does not have aerofoils protruding into the air stream producing drag. Assuming dry weights the DeltaWing produces 25N of downforce per Kg of mass whilst the R18 only creates 18N. The DeltaWing is a good example of the potential benefits of underbody aero and perhaps why it is so closely regulated.

So its aerodynamic/downforce efficiency isn't so much about the DeltaWing concept as it is about the ground effect package it uses (nothing new there) that other cars aren't allowed to use. Make the underbody aerodynamics equal to the LMPs and then lets see what we have.

Everyone understands the tremendous downforce gains to be made with underbody aero. Otherwise, would it be banned?

ETA: Can't wait to see this thing on turns 3-8, 15, and to a lesser extent, T16-19 at COTA.

I'd say it's pretty good given they never had that much of a budget anyway and had to accommodate the old AMR-One tub. The ZEOD RC will likely be more refined than that.

As has been mentioned, the car utilizes technology currently banned in sportscars.... venturi tunnels. For how long have LMP1 cars used the standard template underfloor? The delta wing is only a marketing ploy, and because of that it has to look different.

The delta wing is for the masses to notice. It is NOT an engineering masterpiece or nowhere near. In fact, if anything Michelin deserve the credit for its ability to race.

As an aerodynamic platform the car is a waste of space. As a racecar it is waste of time. As a marketing ploy? It's a batmobile, and therefore works. Nissan are genius's in that respect only.

ETA: Can't wait to see this thing on turns 3-8, 15, and to a lesser extent, T16-19 at COTA.

Because of those front lips on the leading edge, I suspect it's change of direction will not be too bad. I can imagine those lips having a positive effect in yaw. But I for one hope it's quite a large chunk behind the P2's.

Because of those front lips on the leading edge, I suspect it's change of direction will not be too bad. I can imagine those lips having a positive effect in yaw. But I for one hope it's quite a large chunk behind the P2's.

I went out to the track yesterday and caught a bit of the first ALMS/WEC practice. Caught the new DeltaWing Coupe in action. I didn't see any times, but one of our Facebook followers said the Deltawing was 5 seconds slower than the top P1s. I don't know its relative performance to the P2s though.

As has been mentioned, the car utilizes technology currently banned in sportscars.... venturi tunnels. For how long have LMP1 cars used the standard template underfloor? The delta wing is only a marketing ploy, and because of that it has to look different.

The delta wing is for the masses to notice. It is NOT an engineering masterpiece or nowhere near. In fact, if anything Michelin deserve the credit for its ability to race.

As an aerodynamic platform the car is a waste of space. As a racecar it is waste of time. As a marketing ploy? It's a batmobile, and therefore works. Nissan are genius's in that respect only.

F1 cars, like pretty much all open wheelers, are much easier to flip due to those quickly rotating rubbery things they all seem to have. Probably Pirelli's fault though.

A tricyle is not a car. You're saying you envision the Nissan when someone says "car" It looks neat, it looks different. That is the ONLY reason it exists. No engineer on the planet would choose a tricycle as a design to race a normal 4 wheel car.

A 4 wheeled car DOES NOT have an inherent toppling stability issue if the rear end is pushed out. A tricyle does. This is .. common sense, is it not? If the vehicles were to never, ever bump each other in a race then it would be different. If this design is allowed to continue I would suggest "somebody" wants more spectacular roll over crashes to happen, maybe for the NASCAR appeal. Gunnar Jeanette was lucky he didn't roll on top of the barriers at Road Atlanta, another design flaw is that without any side impact structure the angle of attack allowed on the driver's head is much, much shallower. He could have broke his neck if his helmet had hit a lump of dirt the wrong way as he was sliding upside down.

The more I think of it, from a safety aspect, it's pretty much completely reckless and without any practical merit. You can make a light high performance racecar for less than that - Radikal, Ariels, this is propaganda that could get somewhere seriously hurt or killed. It won't just be Nissans fault, it will be the sanctioning body. Otherwise, if the upright stability and roll safety isn't really a concern, I'm sure there are plenty of Superbike and MotoGp crazies willing to take the grid against the prototypes and GTs. That would be interesting.

As has been mentioned, the car utilizes technology currently banned in sportscars.... venturi tunnels. For how long have LMP1 cars used the standard template underfloor? The delta wing is only a marketing ploy, and because of that it has to look different.

The delta wing is for the masses to notice. It is NOT an engineering masterpiece or nowhere near. In fact, if anything Michelin deserve the credit for its ability to race.

As an aerodynamic platform the car is a waste of space. As a racecar it is waste of time. As a marketing ploy? It's a batmobile, and therefore works. Nissan are genius's in that respect only.

It's really getting quite tiring. The Deltawing was not developed by Nissan and it was not originally designed to compete in LMP1. It was a proposal for IndyCar and intended to facilitate cheaper, closer, and safer racing. Half the weight, half the engine power, but similar speeds thanks to massively reduced drag. Less tire usage, less fuel consumption, the same racing for just much less money. The project was revived by Nissan for LeMans and from then on you can call it a marketing ploy all you like, but at that point, the design was already there.

But fine, whatever. You don't have to like it. It's horrible and a waste of everything and we should rather have more entries like the GreenGT, that at least made for some pretty cool CG pics with its completely revolutionary technology. Just remember to bump this thread every few months to tell everyone about it. I'm out.

It's really getting quite tiring. The Deltawing was not developed by Nissan and it was not originally designed to compete in LMP1. It was a proposal for IndyCar and intended to facilitate cheaper, closer, and safer racing. Half the weight, half the engine power, but similar speeds thanks to massively reduced drag. Less tire usage, less fuel consumption, the same racing for just much less money. The project was revived by Nissan for LeMans and from then on you can call it a marketing ploy all you like, but at that point, the design was already there.

But fine, whatever. You don't have to like it. It's horrible and a waste of everything and we should rather have more entries like the GreenGT, that at least made for some pretty cool CG pics with its completely revolutionary technology. Just remember to bump this thread every few months to tell everyone about it. I'm out.

One of the requirements for the indy car tender was also a modern, different look. Hence the rather toy like DW-12 and proposal's by Swift.

Are you telling me, the Delta wing is the best way to achieve the half power, half drag formula that Indy wanted? And safer racing?! Safer racing?!

Who else on here believes the shape of the delta wing is probably more a hindrance on a high speed oval than the concept we have now? Importance of racing is knowing the spacial limits of the car. In Indy that is defined by the whereabouts of the wheels. I would not trust anyone racing wheel to wheel in that thing at 200mph on an oval. Would you? Hell imagine it racing around Baltimore...

I assure you, ask anyone and to achieve the less power, less drag, and therefore less fuel you can use a conventional set up and be even quicker, and more efficient.

The original design was an eye catching ploy to lure sponsors and support.

It is NOT a racing machine by any means. It never was, it never will be.

I support the straight-line speed run fully but it is not a racer, despite the original claims..

Here is a piece of rather slanted reporting about the Deltawing at Austin. What an achievement, to take third in P1, you might think! What the reporter fails to mention is that there were only three entries in the class in the first place so the Deltawing was guaranteed a 3rd place, and that it retired after 66 of the 83 laps which is barely enough to count as a finisher.

How did the device's fastest lap of 2.03.266 compare to others? Qualifying was wet, so it was some 12 seconds faster than it qualified, but I note that the P1 pole in the wet was 2.07.851, so that car was presumably running well under 2 min laps in the dry race?

I'm not sure what differences there are between the coupe and the "vanilla" Delta-Wing, but the perfomance on Saturday was very disappointing before it retired.

It spent a lot of it's time running just behind the battle for the GT lead, so it was well off the pace. The straight line speed was understandably pretty good, but the GT cars were comfortably faster in the corners. Saying that, I don't know if they were nursing a problem towards the end before it retired. I think the Muscle Milk did a 1:53 fastest lap, so it was probably running overall at LMPC pace

Camber is a beautiful thing.
I have an '87 930 that is arrow straight at warp speed, then again the Pirelli P-Zeros wear out in about 1/4 of the time for the rears do...that thing eats front tyres like they are going out of style, and only on the inside of the tread.

Are they directional? If not you would re-mount them inside out for double the tread life. (Theoretically--who needs an outside shoulder anyway?)

Are they directional? If not you would re-mount them inside out for double the tread life. (Theoretically--who needs an outside shoulder anyway?)

Unfortunately they are all handed, so no switching from lefts to rights. It's mostly a garage queen now, and gets run maybe every three months or so for less than an hour. The syncros from 2nd to first are on their last legs, and god forbid the tranny goes or I'll have a bill of at least 10k. You can find the same car right now for right around 20k +/- so who knows what I'll I do with it. It's still a rocketship, but not even close to what the new turbos are in terms of refinement and comfort. Frankly my new Jeep has about 10 times the tech that the 930 has.

Here is a piece of rather slanted reporting about the Deltawing at Austin. What an achievement, to take third in P1, you might think! What the reporter fails to mention is that there were only three entries in the class in the first place so the Deltawing was guaranteed a 3rd place, and that it retired after 66 of the 83 laps which is barely enough to count as a finisher.

How did the device's fastest lap of 2.03.266 compare to others? Qualifying was wet, so it was some 12 seconds faster than it qualified, but I note that the P1 pole in the wet was 2.07.851, so that car was presumably running well under 2 min laps in the dry race?

It was actually looking good in the wet, wouldn't have been far off the HPD but it lost power exiting the final corner and ground to a halt shortly after the timing beam.

In the race, it looked dreadful. Plenty of waft on the straights, but was not able to brake late at all (usually it's strength) and was woeful in the slow turns. Some GT's were having a job to avoid hitting it!

Brand new car, tested once before the race meeting, so i can forgive it some issues.

Is there a reason a car designed to no regulation set is allowed to race in ALMS? Someone should design a modern Mercedes C11 and see if that is allowed to race... If the Delta wing is allowed, why wouldn't a car that promotes innovation in design construction and aerodynamics?

edit - It wasn't all that long ago the ALMS was a strong series... Now it's a joke.

Is there a reason a car designed to no regulation set is allowed to race in ALMS?

That would be novelty value, which has been this car's raison d'etre from the outset. It now weighs in at 490 kgs but can race in ALMS P1 class which has a 900 kg minimum weight, so pretty well half the weight of its (faster) classmates. So it is still getting special treatment, despite which it isn't competitive.

Yep, many times more publicity than it deserves given its performance. ALMS may as well let someone run a go-kart, a lawnmower, a motorized wheelbarrow, and a clown car if this is the direction they want to go.

I will not choose to define a definition of a "car", when it serves no purpose to the presentation of the fact that the vehicle is inherently unstable. For obvious reasons.

not necessarily so if cog is rightly at the back (but not too much) of the car as well as low, and front suspension is nicely soft and flexible and well aligned specifically for 3-wheels.

Many 4 wheel cars are taking the cornering load on those 3-wheels as well. if deltawing's weight balance is nicely placed, it can be as stable as some of 4 wheel cars, or can even be more stable coz both front wheels take loads on corners.

Also when 4 wheels topple over, it's often due to wide-r width of front wheels, so delta can be less topple-y than some of 4 wheel vehicles too.